评论
打印
Welcome to CrashCourse Economics. I'm Jacob Clifford.
欢迎收看经济速成班，我是雅各布·克利福德。
And I'm Adriene Hill, and today, we're talking about competition and game theory.
我是埃德因·希尔。我们今天将要讨论竞争与博弈论。
Games? Like board games or video games? I can beat my seven-year-old at Call of Duty.
什么游戏？和棋牌游戏或电子游戏一样吗？我可以在“使命的召唤”中打败我七岁的孩子。
No, not quite like that. In this kind of game, if you lose, you're bankrupt.
不，不是那样的。在这种游戏中，如果你输了，就会破产。
So when we talk about markets, there are basically four different types, or market structures.
我们谈论的市场基本有四种不同的类型或者市场结构。
They vary based on things like number of producers, control over prices, and barriers to entry,
它们基于生产者数量、价格控制和进入壁垒
or how hard it is for new businesses to jump in the market.
或者新企业进入市场的难度等因素而变化。
Most agricultural products, like strawberries, are in a type of market called perfect competition.
草莓等大多数农产品都属于一种叫做完全竞争的市场。
There are thousands of farmers, all growing identical strawberries,
成千上万的农民种植着相同的草莓，
and it's pretty easy to get in the market, you just plant strawberries.
而且它们很容易进入市场，你只管种就好。
Individual businesses don't have control over prices.
个体企业无法控制价格。
One farmer can't convince you to pay 10 dollars if you can buy it from other farmers for only 4 dollars.
如果你能从农民那里4美元买到草莓，那么另一个农民不能说服你付10美元买它。
A monopoly is on the side of the spectrum.
垄断正好与完全竞争的市场相反。
There's one large company that produces a product with very few substitutes,
一家大公司生产的产品几乎没有替代品，
and because high barriers prevent competition, a monopoly has a lot of control over price.
并且因为高壁垒阻碍竞争，垄断对价格有很大的控制权。
There are two types of markets in between these extremes.
在这两个极端之间还有两种类型的市场。
Monopolistic competition is a market with many producers and relatively low barriers.
垄断竞争是指一个有许多生产者，而且壁垒相对较低的的市场。
Their products are very similar, but not identical.
他们的产品很相似，但并不完全相同。
This could be something like furniture stores or fast food.
它们可能是家具店或者快餐之类的东西。
McDonald's and Burger King do have noticeably different products.
麦当劳和汉堡王的产品明显不同。
One might be able to charge a slightly higher price if, for whatever reason, consumers prefer that type of burger,
如果消费者出于某种原因更青睐一种汉堡的话，那家公司可能会稍微调高价格，
but if either tried to increase their prices a lot, then everyone would just go to their competitor,
但如果它涨价太多的话，消费者们就会去它的竞争对手那里，
and if McDonald's and Burger King both tried to raise their prices at the same time,
如果麦当劳与汉堡王同时试图涨价，
some other company will enter the market since the barriers are relatively low.
那么其他公司将会进入该市场，因为它的进入壁垒相对较低。
Taco Bell will start selling hamburgers.
塔可钟可能开始售卖汉堡。
The last type are oligopolies, and that's what we're gonna focus on today.
最后一类市场是寡头垄断，这是我们今天要关注的。
Oligopolies are markets that have high barriers to entry and are controlled by a few large companies.
寡头垄断是指准入门槛很高，并由几家大公司控制的市场。
Oligopolies are all over the place.
寡头垄断无处不在。
In fact, their products are likely in front of you right now.
事实上，他们的产品很可能就在你眼前。
The laptop computer market is dominated by companies like HP, Dell, and Apple,
笔记本电脑市场由惠普、戴尔和苹果等公司控制，
and the majority of mobile phones are produced by Apple, Samsung, and LG.
大多数手机是苹果、三星和LG生产的。
You also see this type of thing in the market for cars, air travel, movies, candy, and game consoles.
在汽车、航空旅行、电影、糖果和游戏机市场上，你也能看到寡头垄断。
Like monopolistic competition,
与垄断竞争一样，
oligopolies often sell product that are similar but not identical and this gives them control over their prices.
寡头垄断通常会出售相似但不完全相同的产品，这使他们能够控制价格。
But how much? You might love your iPhone,
但价格是多高？你可能喜欢你的iPhone，
but if Apple raised the price of a phone to 3,000 dollars you might switch to Android.
但如果苹果将手机价格提高到3000美元，你可能会转而使用安卓系统。
But the price of an iPhone is pretty close to the price of a high-end Android.
但iPhone的价格实际与安卓高端机的价格相当接近。
So how do they compete? The answer is non-price competition and,
那么它们如何竞争呢？答案是非价格竞争，
as you might guess, it's competing without changing the price.
你可能猜到了，它们不通过改价竞争。
This happens in a lot of industries. Companies focus on things like style, quality, location or service.
这种情况发生在很多行业。公司们注重的是风格、质量、地点或服务等。
The goal is to distinguish their product from their competitors.
它们的目标是将产品与其竞争对手区分开来。
Like, the jeans that one company sells might be virtually identical to everyone else's in terms of quality,
比如，一家公司出售的牛仔裤在质量上可能和其他公司的几乎一样，
but if they can convince consumers that having a designer label on their butt is cool,
但如果它们能说服消费者屁兜上有个设计标签很酷的话，
buyers might pay much much more.
那么消费者可能会购买得更多。
The same logic holds true if a better customer service or has more convenient locations.
如果消费服务更好或者地点更便利的话，这一逻辑同样适用。
The most recognizable form of non-price competition is advertising.
最容易辨认的非价格竞争形式是广告。
Companies spend billions of dollars each year introducing new products or services
公司每年花数百万美元引入新产品或服务，
and differentiating themselves from their competitors.
并将它们与其竞争对手区分开来。
And despite all that spending, most of the time, advertising just kind of fades into the background.
尽管大多数时候广告费很多，但它们到最后都沦为了背景。
Can you remember the ad that ran before this video? No? Me neither.
你还记得这个视频之前播放的广告吗？不记得了？我也是。
Don Draper might tell you, "Half the money spent on advertising is wasted; the trouble is you don't know which half."
唐·德雷柏可能告诉你，“一半的广告费都被浪费了，但问题在于你不知道是哪部分。”
It's clear that not every advertisement sticks, but advertising can work to help a brand stand out.
很明显，不是所有广告都突出，但是广告确实可以帮助一个品牌脱颖而出。
So, those ads that run before YouTube videos?
那么这些YouTube视频之前播放的广告呢？
Some are for products sold in monopolistically competitive markets,
它们有些是为垄断竞争市场上销售的产品做得广告，
but the majority are probably from oligopolies.
但大多数可能来自于寡头垄断。
I mean, think of car companies, they advertise a lot.
我的意思是，想想汽车公司吧，它们做了很多广告。
Generally, monopolies don't bother advertising because they have no competition,
通常来说，垄断公司不用麻烦地做广告，因为它们没有竞争，
and firms in perfectly competitive markets don't run ads because their products are identical.
完全竞争市场中的公司也不必打广告，因为它们的产品相同。
Advertising just increases their costs and drives up the prices, which means customers go to their competitors.
广告只会增加它们的成本，增高价格，这意味着消费者会去其竞争对手那里。
So, oligopolies sound like they operate pretty much like monopolistic competition
所以，寡头垄断的运作听起来很像垄断竞争，
but the big difference between the two is that oligopolies are made up of a few large companies.
但两者最大的不同在于寡头垄断是由几家大公司组成的。
This means that each company makes a decision with the actions of their competitors in mind.
这意味着每家公司在决定时都要考虑到竞争对手的行动。
They use game theory, the study of strategic decision making. Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
他们使用博弈理论，它是一种战略决策研究。我们去“Thought Bubble”。
Let's start with a classic of game theory, something called the "prisoner's dilemma."
我们从经典的博弈理论开始，即“囚徒困境悖论”。
Suppose Stan and I are arrested for scrawling in wet cement outside the YouTube studios.
假设斯坦和我因在YouTube电影公司外的湿水泥中涂鸦而被捕。
We're being interviewed separately. If we both confess, we'll both have to pay a 10,000 fine dollars.
我们单独接受采访。如果我们都认罪，就要各自付1万美元。
If neither of us confesses we'll get if scot-free.
如果我们两个都不承认，就会无罪。
And if I take a deal and confess, but Stan doesn't, I'll walk away and Stan will owe 20,000 dollars.
如果我接受交易认罪，但斯坦不认罪，那么我能离开，斯坦会欠2万美元。
And vice versa. So what do we do?
反之亦然，那么我们会如何做呢？
Because we can't discuss it, we both confess, and both end up owing 10,000 dollars.
因为我们不能讨论，所以我们都认罪了，并且都支付了1万美元。
This is game theory: even if people or companies rationally follow their own self-interest,
这就是博弈论：即使人们或公司理性地追随自己的利益，
the best outcomes hard to reach when they can't or don't cooperate.
但他们不能或不合作时，很难达成最好结果。
Game theory helps explain why you get drug stores and coffee shops next to each other.
博弈论有助于解释为什么药店和咖啡店相邻。
Let's say that Craig and Phil both start selling tchotchkes on the Coney Island Boardwalk.
假设克雷格和菲尔开始在康尼岛步行街上卖小玩具。
At first they start on opposite sides of the street, sharing customers equally.
一开始，他们都在街道两侧，平等地分享顾客。
Phil realizes that if he gets closer to Craig, he'll retain all of his old customers, and snag some of Craig's.
菲尔意识到，如果他离克雷格更近的话，他在留住老顾客的同时，也能从克雷格那里拉顾客。
But Craig's no dummy, he moves his cart closer to Phil's.
但克雷格并不是傻瓜，他也把车更靠近菲尔的车。
This continues until they both wind up right in the middle of the boardwalk,
这种情况一直持续到他们俩都到了步行街中间，
sharing customers equally and unable to improve their position.
平等地分享客户，不能改善位置了为止。
This also plays out with pricing. If Craig lowers his price on Crash Course nesting dolls,
这也与定价有关。如果克雷格降低速成课套娃的价格,
Phil will likely compete by dropping his prices as well.
菲尔也可能通过降低价格来竞争。
In the end they're going to continue to share customers equally and earn less money.
最终，他们将继续平等地分享客户，并且钱赚得更少了。
If Craig understands game theory, he knows there's no reason to change his price.
如果克雷格理解博弈论，他知道没有理由改变自己的价格。
Instead, he focuses on providing knick-knacks that differentiate his kiosk from Phil's.
他反而会专注于提供把自己的报摊与菲尔的报摊区分开的小摆设。
This can help explain why the prices in oligopolies tend to get stuck
这有助于解释为什么寡头垄断的价格往往会进入僵局，
and why companies focus so much on non-price competition. Thanks Thought Bubble.
以及公司如此关注非价格竞争。感谢“Thought Bubble”。
So, what if Craig and Phil don't compete at all?
那么，如果克雷格和菲尔根本不竞争呢？
What if instead, they agree to charge the same high price, conspiring to form what economists call a cartel?
万一他们同意收取同样高的价格，共同组成一个经济学家所说的卡特尔同盟呢？
Again they split the customers 50/50, but they make even more profit, benefiting at the expense of customers.
他们同样平分消费者，但能以牺牲顾客为代价赚取更多的利润。
This is called collusion, and it's illegal in the U.S.
这被称为勾结，在美国是非法的。
There are strict antitrust laws designed to prevent it.
美国有严格的反托拉斯法来防止它。
But that doesn't mean companies don't figure out other ways to raise prices.
但这不意味着企业不能想出其他办法来提价。
Price leadership is when one company changes its prices,
价格领袖是指当一家公司改变价格时，
and its competitors have to decide if they're going to follow suit.
它的竞争对手必须决定自己是否会效仿。
Since they're not actively colluding, it's technically legal. But it can be hard to tell the difference.
由于他们没有积极地串通，这在理论上是合法的。但这很难区分。
Look at airline baggage fees.
我们以航空公司的行李费为例。
When some airlines started charging fees for checked bags, other airlines quickly joined them.
当一些航空公司开始收取行李费时，其他航空公司也迅速加入其中。
And when one big airline changes their baggage fee, the others tend to move to the same price point.
当一家大型航空公司改变它们的行李费时，其他航空公司往往会调整到同一水平。
Are they colluding, or is this a case of price leadership?
它们是在串通一气，还是说这是价格领袖?
Well, the Justice Department's looking into it.
司法部正在调查此事。
Other countries' laws differ, and cartels do exist.
其他国家的法律不同，而且卡特尔同盟确实存在。
The best example is OPEC, The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
最好的例子是石油输出国组织(OPEC)。
It's and international cartel made up of oil-producing countries that manipulate oil supplies to control prices.
它是由石油生产国组成的国际卡特尔，操纵石油供应以控制价格。
They control 80% of the world's known oil reserves and nearly half of the world's crude oil production.
他们控制着世界上80%的已知石油储量和近一半的世界原油产量。
Economists like to explain oligopolies and game theory by creating something called a payoff matrix.
经济学家们喜欢通过创造一种叫做收益矩阵的东西来解释寡头垄断和博弈论。
Let's say Stan and Brandon have competing companies. Each can set prices high or low.
假设斯坦和布兰登的公司有竞争。每家都可以定高价或低价。
The numbers in the boxes represent the amount of the profit each company will earn in different situations.
盒子里的数量代表每家公司在不同情况下的利润总额。
The profit on the left in each cell is for Stan and the numbers on the right are for Brandon.
每个单元左边的利润都是给斯坦的，右边的是给布兰登的。
So if Stan has a low price and Brandon has a high price, Stan earns 300 dollars and Brandon earns 50 dollars.
如果斯坦定低价而布兰登定高价，那么斯坦赚300美元，布兰登赚50美元。
Now, payoff scenarios for companies are never this transparent, but the matrix says a lot about oligopolies.
公司的收益情况从来都不是透明的，但是这个矩阵说明了寡头垄断的很多问题。
The optimal outcome is for each business to charge high prices so they both get 200 dollars.
最理想的结果是每个企业都收取高价，这样他们都能赚200美元。
Stan knows this, but he also recognizes that there could be even more profit by charging a lower price.
斯坦知道这一点，但他也认识到，低价可能会带来更多的利润。
Brandon comes to the same conclusion,
布兰登也得出了同样的结论，
so they both price low and they end up in the worst combined outcome with each only making 80 dollars profit.
所以他们的价格都很低，结果导致最糟糕的组合结果，每个人只赚80美元。
Even if they collude and agree to price high, they both have an incentive to cheat on that agreement.
即使他们串通一气，同意抬高价格，他们也都有在协议上作弊的动机。
So collusion and cartels are often unstable.
因此，勾结和卡特尔同盟常常是不稳定的。
They can only last if the agreement is monitored and strictly enforced.
只有在监督和严格执行协议的情况下，他们才能坚持到底。
A lot of times, it's possible to predict the final outcome based on the information in the payoff matrix.
很多时候，根据收益矩阵的信息预测最终结果是可能的。
The best outcome for Stan, when Brandon makes a move, is called Stan's best response.
当布兰登采取行动时，斯坦的最好结果叫做斯坦的最佳对策。
So if Brandon prices high, Stan's best response is to price low
所以，如果布兰登定价高，斯坦的最佳对策是低价，
and if Brandon prices low, then Stan's best response is, again, to price low.
如果布兰登的定价低，那么斯坦的最佳对策还是降低价格。
That is called having a dominant strategy.
这就是所谓的占优战略。
It always gives the best available outcome, no matter what the other guy does.
不管别人做什么，它总能给出最好结果。
For Brandon, pricing low is his dominant strategy too.
对布兰登来说，定价低也是他的占优战略。
Regardless of what Stan does, pricing low always results in a better outcome.
不管斯坦做什么，定价低总是会带来更好的结果。
Game theory helps companies make decisions,
博弈论能帮助公司做决策，
but potential payoffs are never easy to predict and there are many situation where there's no clear dominant strategy.
但是潜在的回报从来都不容易预测，而且在许多情况下，没有明确的占优战略。
Sometimes, the best response changes depending on what competitors do.
有时，最佳对策取决于竞争对手的行为。
Those that don't keep up or are slow to adapt are pushed aside.
那些跟不上或不适应的人就被排挤掉了。
It's called game theory, but the former industry leaders like Pan American Airways, Atari,
这被称为博弈论，但是对泛美航空公司、雅达利公司、
and Research In Motion that made Blackberry phones, the end of the game was not that fun.
和生产黑莓手机的动态研究公司这样的前行业领导者来说，博弈结果并不好玩。
In any game, there are winners and losers, unless it's some lame co-op thing.
任何游戏都有赢家和输家，除非这是一个蹩脚的合作项目。
But at its best, healthy competition promotes innovation which, in the end, makes us all better off.
但在最好的情况下，健康竞争促进了创新，而创新最终会让我们变得更好。
And ideally we get cheaper air fares, constantly improving cell phones, and amazing video game consoles.
理想情况下，我们会得到更便宜的机票、不断改进的手机以及令人惊叹的视频游戏机。
Thanks for watching, we'll see you next week.
感谢您的收看，我们下期见。
Thanks for watching Crash Course Economics, which is made with the help of all these awesome people.
感谢您收看经济速成班，它是由这些好心人帮助制作的。
You can help keep Crash Course free, for everyone, forever, by supporting the show at Patreon.
你可以通过支持Patron上的节目帮助速成班永远免费对所有人开放。
Patreon is a voluntary subscription service
Patreon是个自愿订阅服务的平台，
where you can help support the show by giving a monthly contribution.
你可以每月捐助来支持该节目。
